26 Jun
1997
26 Jun
'97
11:07 a.m.
What worries me is that in a lot of cases, the older
machines are more
useable than the modern Wintel equivalents. This applies both to a new
user (somebody who just wants to write 2 page letters does _NOT_ (or
should not) need a 166MHz Pentium with 16Mbytes of RAM), and to 'hackers'
who want to understand their machines. It's possible for one person to
complete understand both the hardware and software of most classic
computers - something that (IMHO) is not possible with a Wintel box.
Same here. In reality I use my s100 crate, ampro, and
sb180 to produce
8048/9 and 8051 code as they really are faster and easier to use. Also
being as I have them interconnected it's easier to blast proms in the
s100 crate. Efficient, very! I've had nearly 20 years to refine the code
and tools! I have the advantage of having source code for those tools so
and long latent bugs are easily squashed. This is not doable on PCs.
I still do my banking/checkbook on the kaypro! Faster
than the PC
overall.
For a while there, I was thinking maybe I'm in the wrong group.
I see a LOT of traffic about restoring and collecting old computers,
and the typical member here is one who has a large collection of
different machines, but except for a rare question about boot disks,
there isn't much said about using these machines. When I turn on my
99/4A or Geneve, it isn't primarily to bask in a nostalgic glow, but
to write something or balance my budget or do some programming.
Certainly the nostalgic glow is there, and it adds a dimension to
the computing experience that peecee devotees cannot understand. But
it IS my primary workhorse, not just a desk queen.
Don't get me wrong; I love to hear about these old machines, so keep
those messages coming. But I would like to hear from others out there
who use their obsolete machines (I prefer "non-mainstream machines")
for practical, everyday, household computing uses.
In fact, I'm wondering how widespread my idea is (shared by a
few, apparently) that the smaller, simpler machines really are well
suited for home use, and you don't need a high-end peecee for nearly
everything you want to do.
--
**********************************************
* David Ormand *** Southwest 99ers *
* dlormand(a)aztec.asu.edu *** Tucson, Arizona *
**************************** TMS9900 Lives! *
26 Jun
26 Jun
12:41 p.m.
It was thus said that the Great DAVID L. ORMAND once stated:
I no longer use my Coco for word processing, namely for two reasons: I
don't have the space to set it up, and two, it's a bit sluggish (okay, I'm
spoiled - I like having true lower case and a 80x25 screen).
But I do use my other computers - a 386 for communications (as it can
handle the 28.8kbps modem I have now), the Amiga for programming, the Data
General 1 (lap top) when I travel and the Tandy 6000 for financial stuff (it
has Multiplan on it, which I use from time to time).
I'd use the uVax more often, but I need to get a new harddrive for it, and
getting one with VMS 4.x pre-installed isn't that easy (not that I've tried
really hard). I'd probably use it for CPU intensive projects, like ray
tracing, and some development work (homebrew project: operating system of my
own design).
-spc (Fairly selective in the machines I collect - I don't have the time,
money or space to collect machines ad-hoc. I like to use the
machines I have)
I still do my banking/checkbook on the kaypro!
Faster than the PC
overall.
In fact, I'm wondering how widespread my idea is (shared by a
few, apparently) that the smaller, simpler machines really are well
suited for home use, and you don't need a high-end peecee for nearly
everything you want to do.
27 Jun
27 Jun
1:35 a.m.
On Thu, 26 Jun 1997, Captain Napalm wrote:
It was thus said that the Great DAVID L. ORMAND once
stated:
I no longer use my Coco for word processing, namely for two reasons: I
don't have the space to set it up, and two, it's a bit sluggish (okay, I'm
spoiled - I like having true lower case and a 80x25 screen).
I'd use the uVax more often, but I need to get a new harddrive for it, and
getting one with VMS 4.x pre-installed isn't that easy (not that I've tried
really hard). I'd probably use it for CPU intensive projects, like ray
tracing, and some development work (homebrew project: operating system of my
own design).
I plan to put the '11 to work as my Internet machine. When I get a LAN
in the house (Not Likely), I plan to use it as the server machine. The
point is it probably out-performs my 486. And it's neat. I just wish I
had the programmer's panel for it! I may also make it a webserver
(Assuming I can re-write HTTPD) so I can show off. Or I may just get
lazy like normal and not do any of this :)
I still do my banking/checkbook on the kaypro!
Faster than the PC
overall.
In fact, I'm wondering how widespread my idea is (shared by a
few, apparently) that the smaller, simpler machines really are well
suited for home use, and you don't need a high-end peecee for nearly
everything you want to do.
26 Jun
26 Jun
2:33 p.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 1562 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/19970626/5a8f53b5/at…
27 Jun
27 Jun
1:04 a.m.
On Thu, 26 Jun 1997, DAVID L. ORMAND wrote:
In fact, I'm wondering how widespread my idea is (shared by a
few, apparently) that the smaller, simpler machines really are well
suited for home use, and you don't need a high-end peecee for nearly
everything you want to do.
Here, here! I am totally in empathy with you, David, on this. I use many
of
the machines in my collection daily for various tasks; keeping private
journal pages on the C-64's word processor, playing games on my PS2
Model 25, even surfing the 'Net and email on my XT in the kitchen!
In fact, there are not many tasks in computing that I have found to
REQUIRE a fast, modern PC with tons of memory and processor. Keep in mind
that practically *all* of the tasks done on today's machines are exactly
those that were done 15 years ago on the simpler machines.
What *has* changed IMHO are the skills that the average user now brings to
the interface. Click, point, drag, and drop require a lot less dexterity,
concentration, and skill than learning keyboard commands, or having to be
competent with an operating system in order to get it to do what you want
it to.
Kirk Scott
dynasoar(a)mindspring.com
26 Jun
26 Jun
12:29 p.m.
It was thus said that the Great dynasoar once stated:
In fact, there are not many tasks in computing that I have found to
REQUIRE a fast, modern PC with tons of memory and processor. Keep in mind
that practically *all* of the tasks done on today's machines are exactly
those that were done 15 years ago on the simpler machines.
But it depends upon what you are doing. While in theory you could
calculate e to 100,000 digits using an Apple ][, it might take upwards of a
week for the results, and you couldn't use the computer in the meantime,
whereas on modern machines, 100,000 digits could be generated in under an
hour, and with the right OS, you could still work on other things [1].
And if you consider that a pretty bogus example, what about rendering
(which I used to know as ray tracing)? Or photographic (or just graphic)
manipulations?
Granted, there are plenty of things that can still be done on older
hardware, and in fact, I used to write a weekly humor column on a Coco in
the late 80s.
What *has* changed IMHO are the skills that the
average user now brings to
the interface. Click, point, drag, and drop require a lot less dexterity,
concentration, and skill than learning keyboard commands, or having to be
competent with an operating system in order to get it to do what you want
it to.
What also has changed is the speed of computers, and the amount of memory.
On the plus side, the increase in speed and memory has the potential to
allow one to manipulate more data in less time. Unfortunately, programs
(and operating systems) have bloated, which lessens the usefulness of fast
CPUs and vast memory.
Don't get me wrong, I like the older computers, if only because of what
could be done with 1K, 4K, 16K or 64K. And they are conceptually simpler to
understand and possibly even repairable. Not so with todays computers with
proprietary VLSI chips that do everything.
[1] Steve Wozniak wrote a program to calculate e to 100,000 digits on an
Apple ][, using highly optimized assembly, which took advantage of
mapping the problem to the 6502, and it still took 4 days. A year
or so ago I wrote a version in C (based upon the 6502 code and his
explanation of it [2]) and ran it on a 386-33Mhz running Linux and
had an answer in under an hour. My, how time progresses 8-)
[2] Byte, December 1981.
27 Jun
27 Jun
4:23 a.m.
On Thu, 26 Jun 1997, DAVID L. ORMAND wrote:
Don't get me wrong; I love to hear about these old
machines, so keep
those messages coming. But I would like to hear from others out there
who use their obsolete machines (I prefer "non-mainstream machines")
for practical, everyday, household computing uses.
I wrote a book last year on a TRS-80 model 100 portable. There's nothing
else in the 4-pound range that can compare to its excellent keyboard and
long battery life (except, of course, the other machines that share the
same design, such as the NEC PC-8201). Unfortunately, the publisher
required everything to be submitted in Word 6 format using a custom
template (to facilitate conversion to SGML, oddly enough), so I had to do
the final editing on a 486.
--
Scott Ware s-ware(a)nwu.edu
5:38 a.m.
I wrote a book last year on a TRS-80 model 100
portable. There's nothing
else in the 4-pound range that can compare to its excellent keyboard and
long battery life (except, of course, the other machines that share the
same design, such as the NEC PC-8201). Unfortunately, the publisher
required everything to be submitted in Word 6 format using a custom
template (to facilitate conversion to SGML, oddly enough), so I had to do
the final editing on a 486.
That thing (Mod 100) saved my ash more times than I'd like to mention in
school! Unfortunately, I lost 4 keys on the keyboard, so I can't use it
for much anymore (Keys were I K L and ?). I LOVED the look on the math
teacher's face when I walked in with it!
MT: What's that?
Me: A calculator.
MT: You're full of *, it's an organizer. ANd against the rules.
Me: Actually it's a computer.
(Shows off label)
MT: You little wise***!
:)
9991
days inactive
9992
days old
7 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
dlormand＠aztec.asu.edu -
dseagrav＠bsdserver.tek-star.net -
dynasoar＠mindspring.com -
s-ware＠nwu.edu -
shoppa＠alph02.triumf.ca -
spc＠armigeron.com